AS (2012) CR 13

2012 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Thirteenth Sitting

Tuesday 24 April 2012 at 4 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

3.       Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.

4.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the report.

Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 4.05 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation)–The sitting is open.

1. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Belgium

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I remind members that the ballot for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Belgium, which re-opened five minutes ago at 4 p.m., will close at 5 p.m. I remind the tellers, Ms von Cramon-Taubadel and Mr Flego, who were chosen this morning, that they must go to the back of the President’s Chair at 5 p.m. sharp to count the votes. If possible, the results will be announced before the end of this sitting or at the latest at the opening of the next sitting.

2. Personal statements

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Under Rule 34.6, I have been asked to allow two personal statements, and I have agreed. I remind the Assembly that no debate may arise on a personal statement. The persons concerned are Ms Fiala and Mr Voruz.

I call Ms Fiala.

Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – Mr President, dear colleagues, I am ashamed to have to talk about this: this morning, at the end of the long discussion about the lives lost in the Mediterranean Sea, I and my colleague, and probably others – there must have been a misunderstanding with the translation – voted against the report. As I am the former president of the Sub-Committee on Refugees, I wanted to tell you that I am very much in favour of the report, but I was just too stupid to press the right button. I beg you to accept my apologies. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you for that clarification. I call Mr Voruz.

Mr VORUZ (Switzerland) had little to add to what his colleague had said. They had misunderstood the interpretation during the earlier debate and had therefore voted against a report they had intended to support and on which they had worked hard.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Mr Voruz and said that the moral to be drawn by all members of the Assembly was that they should push the right button and not chat while a vote was going on. The rapporteur would be pleased with their support, which would be reported in the records of proceedings.

3. Equality between women and men: a condition for the success of the Arab Spring

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report entitled “Equality between women and men: a condition for the success of the Arab Spring”, Document 12893, to be presented by Ms Fatiha Saïdi on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination. There will then be a statement by Ms Bassima Hakkaoui, Minister of Solidarity, Women, Family and Social Development of Morocco.

In order to allow time for our last debate, we may need to interrupt the list of speakers at about 5.50 p.m. to leave time for the reply and the votes.

I call Ms Saïdi, the rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Ms SAÏDI (Belgium) could summarise her visits to Morocco and Tunisia in three words: hope, fear and vigilance. The hope lay in the improvement in women’s rights promised by the Arab Spring. The fear was that the gains made would be lost as forces of Islamic fundamentalism gained electoral success. The vigilance represented the needs of women and supporters of feminism to continue to protect the rights that had been won. In meetings, representatives of religious parties had told her that rights would be respected, but for many women the role available to them continued to be limited to that of wife and builder of a family.

In Tunisia, the reach of Sharia law was under discussion. New structures being established required the support of strong laws against discrimination. In Morocco, article 475 of the criminal code allowed a rapist to marry his victim, and the Assembly was aware of the outcome of a particular case in which that had happened. A harsh light was required to illuminate the situation, and women deserved support and programmes of co-operation to combat violence. The future had to be based on the application of universal rights, and there must be no cultural relativism.

Steps should be taken to train women in the law, and the Committee of Ministers should seek to raise awareness and to extend the powers of civil society and trade unions, which had done valuable work. Young people, the citizens of tomorrow, also had to be engaged and involved.

There had been much exchange of good practice among women’s group from different countries but more networks were necessary. Tunisia and Algeria should be encouraged to become Partnership for Democracy countries.

Thanks were due to the Moroccan and Tunisian authorities for organising visits to their countries and for providing a welcome. Thanks were due, too, to the Secretariat of the Council of Europe for its help in preparing the report.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Ms Saïdi, who had eight minutes remaining in which to sum up at the end of the debate.

He welcomed Ms Bassima Hakkaoui, Minister of Solidarity, Women, Family and Social Development of Morocco to the Assembly. He had had the pleasure of meeting her earlier in his office for an open discussion, in which she had clearly imparted her enthusiasm and her sense of progress. The chairs of the committees who had organised that meeting deserved much thanks. Ms Hakkaoui was a long-term parliamentarian, having spent nearly 10 years as a member of parliament before becoming a minister. Not all parliamentarians became ministers; she was exceptionally enough to have done so. She had before becoming a minister chaired her parliament’s committee on social sectors and the women’s wing of her party.

The whole Assembly was delighted that Morocco had been granted Partnership for Democracy status. It would be interesting to see how the future unfolded. It was time to introduce such status to other countries; the programme provided an opportunity to demonstrate Europe’s good neighbourliness to the countries of the Mediterranean. It also provided the opportunity to work on many issues but especially on equality, a topic of many dimensions including the political, the economic and the social spheres. Women had to be equal partners in all spheres. Genuine equality of opportunity relied on equal access to education, a fundamental human right. There could be no equality for victims of violence, and an end to violence was a high priority.

The Assembly should also note that a good discussion had been held with Michelle Bachelet, the United Nations Women Executive Director.

Ms HAKKAOUI (Minister of Solidarity, Family, Women and Social Development of Morocco) thanked the President for his kind words and thanked Ms Saïdi for her important report. Although they had not been able to meet in Morocco, Ms Saïdi had met a number of representatives of the government and with Mr Saad Dine El Otmani. There had been some early concerns with the first draft of the report, which had led to some suggestions from the Moroccan Government for modification.

Morocco placed great importance on the promotion of equality for women. For example, chapter 19 of the country’s constitution enshrined the rights for men and women to be treated equally in all aspects of society, whether civil, political, economic, environmental or cultural. These rights were also being enforced through a dedicated equalities body. Chapter 30 of the constitution also stated that equality should be encouraged in all aspects of government. Furthermore, Morocco was working towards the creation of a body overseeing the interests of children and families, which would be established later in 2012. Elsewhere the promotion of equality had been enshrined through reform of the family code and criminal code. The government had also established a family solidarity fund and provided a programme of training for police officers and people working in the justice system on equality issues.

More widely the government was working hard to prioritise the removal of inequalities in the education system and by tackling income poverty. It hoped to benefit 8.5 million of its citizens through these programmes. Recent examples of initiatives to support women included the provision of start-up funding for new enterprises and greater access to land ownership, which they had previously been denied.

There had already been significant progress in a number of areas: access to drinking water had risen from national coverage of 14% to 98% since 1974, for example. This was important because it was women who suffered most from a lack of access to drinking water, particularly during times of war. In recent years there had also been educational improvements. Literacy rates among female children aged between six and 11 had risen from 52% to 91% nationally, with a threefold increase occurring in the rural areas. Women also had a much greater role in the decision-making process; the proportion of women represented in local elections had risen from 0.6% in 2003 to 12.8% in 2009, and in parliamentary elections from 11% in 2007 to 17% in 2011.

All parts of society had a role to play in the promotion of equality. For example, Morocco had various civil society programmes aimed at tackling violence against women. Civil society organisations were able to participate in the decision-making process by preparing draft decisions and evaluation projects.

On 8 March 2012 Morocco marked International Women’s Day. In the current geopolitical context the country represented a model for others, both in the choices it had made and in its aspirations. This had been arrived at after years of political and social dialogue. The government was working on a new national programme that would run from 2012 to 2016 and which would be underpinned by a national strategy. Its goals would include the creation of a body for the promotion of equalities and rights; the creation of a council for families and children; increasing participation in elected bodies; a higher place for women in the decision-making process; observers with regard to the image of women in society; and more generally the spread of a culture of equality. All sectors of government would have a role to play in the delivery of this programme.

There remained aspects of the criminal code that needed reforming or modifying – for example, section 475 of the code on men being able to marry under-age girls. While there was a punishment of a jail sentence of between five and 10 years as well as a monetary fine, it was obvious that these should be stronger to reflect the fact that the girl was under age. Sections 484 and 488, which dealt with sexual assault, also required modification.

The government was determined to continue its good work, building on the foundations it had established on the promotion of human rights and social justice. It was open to co-operation and support from its European neighbours, and the work of the Council of Europe in particular was to be commended. Morocco looked forward to its future work with the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Ms Hakkoumi for her speech and called Ms Schuster, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms SCHUSTER (Germany) thanked the rapporteur for her report and welcomed the contribution of the minister to the debate. The report highlighted various areas where improvement was still needed. While the Arab Spring presented an opportunity for the promotion of women’s rights there were also areas of concern. For example, in Libya and Egypt, it was becoming clear that women’s rights were not featuring high on the agenda for political reform. Indeed, the representation of women in politics had fallen in those countries.

It was important to consider processes as well as numbers. For example, the Moroccan Government had recently lifted its reservations on the role of women in the political system. Elsewhere in Tunisia there was concern that the law in relation to divorce and polygamy might be restricted.

While religion, tradition and culture had a role in all societies, these could not be used as a pretext to limit the rights of women. Europe’s governments should work to ensure that the outcome of the Arab Spring benefited women.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, Ms Schuster. Ms O’Sullivan, you have the floor to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Ms O’SULLIVAN (Ireland) – I acknowledge the work of the committee in producing this report. It covers a comprehensive range of aspects and is progressive in its recommendations on the way forward. I also acknowledge the strong stance of the minister on the positive initiatives being taken.

Equality between men and women is a basic human right. No one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, discrimination or religious belief. Since the beginning of the 20th century, tremendous progress has been made in many countries on women’s voting rights, education and employment, and in the political arena. The challenge for all the countries involved in the Arab Spring is now to actively promote those rights, based on the principle of equality between men and women.

Another report will be taken later about the promotion of active citizenship. One of the points made in the report concerns participation as a feature of active citizenship, and I believe that adopting that principle will also contribute towards equality between men and women. So, how can all the countries involved in the Arab Spring embrace the human right of equality between men and women? The first step is for this principle to be enshrined in their constitutions and the next step is not for it to remain only on the pages of those constitutions, but for it to be put into practice.

I want to acknowledge the role of women in the Arab Spring, in the countries of Morocco, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, and further in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Bahrain. I particularly want to mention the role of women at the protests last weekend in Bahrain on behalf of the jailed activist Abdulhadi al-Kawaja. Their call is for more equality, the right and opportunity to participate in political life in their respective countries and democratic change. It is vital that the Council of Europe takes a leading, proactive role in supporting women’s movements, because it is obvious that women are being sidelined in some of these countries and their previous, considerable role is also being ignored. In some countries, it is almost as if they are being written out of the history of the Arab Spring.

Women are also being written out of a meaningful role in politics; we know about the lower rate of representation of women in some countries, and there is absolutely no parliamentary democracy in other countries. One suggestion is for the countries of the Arab Spring to create a Minister for equality or for women’s affairs, as has happened in Morocco. I support the specific recommendations in the report because if they were implemented, I believe that we would see a change.

Dialogue with the Islamist political forces that won elections is of paramount importance. The issue of the separation of church and State cannot be allowed to take precedence over the principle of equality between men and women. Regardless of the role of whatever church in the State, no church or religion can be allowed to deny women equal rights.

On violence against women, there was a particular case about the rape of a minor. The issue depends on that minor’s being prepared to press charges, and I do not think that that is being actively supported.

The media have a vital role in the countries that we are discussing; a free press can contribute. My final point is that women in rural areas should be particularly supported.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Mendes Bota, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – Many were the women present in Tahrir Square and in Manama’s Pearl Square; many were the women parading, protesting and fighting for democracy and freedom, calling for political and social reforms, and demanding dignity and respect in the streets of Tunis, Sana’a or Tripoli. For a few days in their history, for an interval in their lives, women were seen in those Arab countries as equals, alongside men, in both suffering and determination, and that ultimately led to the fall of dictatorial regimes. Without women, victory would not have been possible.

We Europeans followed these events with attention, expectation and hope – sometimes even hopeful joy – although we kept a due distance with respect to the sovereignty, self-determination and right of Arab peoples to trace their own destiny. We made co-operation available, opened windows of dialogue and extended the bridge of friendship.

But one must say it clearly: we have not lost our optimism. Seeds have been sown for the defence of women’s rights that will no longer wither. However, our concern cannot be concealed; following the fall of the old regimes, old walls of gender segregation have risen once more, although we believed that they had been for ever eradicated. Women are yet again being chased from public places, ill-treated and offended. Long are the paths that lead to democracy, gender equality and the end of patriarchal societies.

I am uncertain about what season of the year it is when there is talk of change in the southern Mediterranean. There are parts where winter burns and summer chills; there are others that have a soft autumn where nothing ever happens. But I do know that the true Arab Spring will not begin as long as women do not fully enjoy their human rights. Yes, I know that this can also happen in Europe; I remember Yulia Tymoshenko.

But let us take the case of Egypt, where the only demonstration forbidden in Tahrir Square was the celebration of International Women’s Day. Women were beaten, subjected to virginity tests and undressed in public. During parliamentary elections that elected only nine women, women’s rights disappeared from the political agenda and even from the speeches of politicians of the new generation. To top it all, one of the elected female parliamentarians declared shortly afterwards that her priority was to revoke the law guaranteeing women their right to divorce. That leads us to another thought: is it possible to build a pluralist democracy – one that guarantees human rights and the rule of law – in a State controlled by Islamic parties imbued with the most backward religious conservatism?

We take this opportunity to congratulate Mrs Saïdi on her excellent report, and we subscribe to all her proposals, from the first to the last.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Durrieu, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Ms DURRIEU (France) thanked the President. The Arab Spring had involved several countries but the claims of women were the same everywhere: they wanted jobs and equality. But the people who used to hold power kept coming back, often via Islamist parties. There were many risks and much at stake, but no democratic revolution could be complete without guaranteeing the rights of women. Women must fight for their rights.

In the current situation, there had been some disappointments. For example, elections in Morocco had seen only one woman placed in the government.

Tackling economic inequality would be crucial, but those countries must define the role of religion in relation to the State. Religious beliefs should be contained within the private and not the public sphere. For example, the functions of democracy had to be above Sharia law. There was an opportunity for Islam to find its place in the political sphere in a way that did not include extremism.

Tribute was owed to female victims of violence throughout the region, but ultimately there was an air of hope.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Durrieu. The next speaker is Ms Gafarova, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Ms GAFAROVA (Azerbaijan) – I congratulate Ms Saïdi on the instructive report, “Equality between women and men: a condition for the success of the Arab Spring”, which is full of interesting information. The issue presented for discussion is very important and significant because there have been no major improvements in women’s lives since the beginning of the Arab Spring a year ago. There is no doubt that the Council of Europe and other organisations that declare the protection of human rights and encouragement of democratic values as the priority of their activity are concerned with the violation of women’s rights in the countries of the Arab Spring. Today’s discussion is an example of the Council of Europe’s will being put forward in this regard.

The waves of people’s unrest in the Middle East and northern Africa caused by economical and political issues have been replaced by further events of mass disturbance and civil war. There is not and cannot be any logical explanation for mass killings of thousands of innocent people. It is a great pity that even nowadays similar events are still taking place in the region. Under such conditions, securing human rights and gender equality becomes a very difficult problem. It would be naïve to expect to secure the protection of human rights, in compliance with supreme values and standards, within the ongoing conflict. At the same time, to ignore the facts under the pretext, “This is their internal business”, cannot be appropriate behaviour.

Gender equality as one of the fundamental human rights is fixed in many international documents. In international law, women are considered as a particular subject and are provided with broad guarantees to enjoy and implement their rights. For realisation of these guarantees and practical implementation of high theoretical values, we have to join our efforts and concur. For this purpose, women should be given more rights. There should be an enhancement of their representation in all spheres of life, not only in traditional spheres such as education and health. Taking efficient advantage of women’s potential in economic and social spheres will enable them to attain more significant successes and achievements.

The Council of Europe and its member States possess sufficient experience with regard to the elimination of these problems. We must jointly render our help to those suffering in this respect, including women, whose rights are violated. While doing this, we must put aside our interests and display sincerity and good will.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Gafarova.

Would the rapporteur like to comment at this stage? You have four minutes, if you care to do so. If not, we will continue with the debate. I call Ms Bergamini of Italy.

(Mr Mota Amaral, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Mignon.)

Ms BERGAMINI (Italy) stated that Council of Europe had been anticipating this report and congratulated the rapporteur on her work. This report was not paternalistic but was intended to give a dispassionate view of the progress made by countries in the Arab Spring. The Assembly should make it absolutely clear that it intended to support women as they fought for their rights in these countries and that it intended to see changes take place right across the Mediterranean region.

The North-South Centre had worked on this issue for many years and achieved much in Tunisia and Morocco, among other countries. Further progress, however, would require further co-operation with civil society and this was an area where the Committee of Ministers had a role to play.

When considering the progress made to date it was important to remember that progress was not a one way street and that there would be setbacks. The Assembly should not, however, allow back-tracking that harmed the independence and dignity of women in the region.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Bergamini.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I remind you that the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Belgium will close in a few minutes and that anybody who has still not voted can do so now?

In the debate, I call Ms Blondin.

Ms BLONDIN (France) said that one year on one of the iconic images of the Arab Spring was the number of women who had come out to protest, giving a feminist flavour to the revolution sweeping north Africa. Yet what had happened in a year? Hope and euphoria were giving way to a return to order often imposed by the beneficiaries of the revolutions. Women were being told to return home because politics was a man’s business.

It was worth remembering that after the French Revolution the same thing had happened. Women were told to return to their homes while those who supported them were sent to the scaffold. The Assembly should remember Victor Hugo’s demand that the rights of man should be counterbalanced by the rights of women.

From Egypt had come photographs of women being dragged across Tahrir Square by soldiers. Recent weeks had seen Alia Majida Al-Mahdi pose naked in protest except for red shoes, the colour of revolution, denouncing the violence and hypocrisy of these acts. This was how the frustration of young people was being expressed. The Assembly had to ensure that it continued to provide a voice for these young women.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Blondin.

It is now 5 p.m. Does any member still wish to vote in the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Belgium?

The ballot is now closed. The counting of votes will take place under the supervision of the tellers, Ms von Cramon-Taubadel and Mr Flego. I invite them to go at once to meet behind the President’s Chair. The results of the election will be announced at a convenient moment in our proceedings following the completion of the counting of votes.

We now return to the debate and I call next Ms Marland-Militello.

Ms MARLAND-MILITELLO (France) congratulated the rapporteur on her comprehensive report. She regretted that the recent elections in Arab Spring States had resulted in a drop in women’s representation. However the position of European nations in relation to women’s representation was not exemplary. In 2007 European law had laid down measures to protect equal opportunities, but most parties found ways around this and progress did not match ambition. In the National Assembly 20% of members were women. There was greater representation in local and regional assemblies, which used list-based systems and a certain percentage of women in top business posts, but this was still not enough. Morocco used quotas and had achieved 16.7% of women in parliament. Tunisia, similarly, had achieved 27% representation, which was better than in France. In Morocco, women had a significant role in certain professions – for example, making up 31% of lawyers. It was positive that Tunisia had promised to refuse to include Sharia law in its new constitution. Affirmative action represented a failure for genuine political equal opportunities.

Education for both sexes was the ultimate solution and was absolutely necessary to tackle the economic inequalities that lay at the origin of the Arab Spring and should be a yardstick for the eventual success or failure of the Arab Spring.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Hancock.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – Like others, I thank the rapporteur and the staff of the committee for the excellent, well-balanced and thoughtful report. Indeed, many aspects of it are impressive.

Sometimes politicians are lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. I had such an experience this afternoon, when I was fortunate enough to be in the room when six women from across the Arab world – from different backgrounds and different countries – spoke with great eloquence and force about their commitment to making a difference in their countries and to women throughout the Arab world. It was an impressive display of commitment and endeavour, and of ambition. We, as an Assembly, should welcome that and do all we can to support and strengthen what those women talked about this afternoon.

For me, the most interesting comment was made by Sarah Ahmed Jamal, an activist and young lady from the Yemen. She talked about an incident that occurred when she was demonstrating. She was knocked to the ground with a Kalashnikov and kicked on the ground by a man. She said that it was interesting that he was not a member of the security forces or the police, but a man in the same demonstration. He acted as he did because she had the effrontery to walk alongside rather than behind him. She made the telling point that, as far as she was concerned as a woman – I hope that she was speaking for all Arab women – the days of Arab women having to walk one pace behind men were in the past. It would be a very foolish State and a very foolish group of men – and men are notorious for their stupidity – that did not take heed of what those women are saying. Women in Tunisia and across the Arab world are saying that they want their States to be equal States. They want their rights to be protected and the well-being of their families to be paramount. They want to play an active part not just in the family and in society, but in the way their governments govern.

The report is about ambition, opportunity and the realisation that the days of men having it all their own way and trying to dictate to society as they see fit are long gone. Many of us in Europe have taken a long time to reach that point – in many of our countries women got the vote in very strange circumstances, and not so long ago in some. Such women in the Arab world are the foundations of the futures of their countries, and no society and no population will ever be comfortable if one part of that population is considered second class and second rate. The women of the Arab world deserve more and we must do all we can to ensure that their ambitions do not end as dreams, but become reality.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Bourzai.

Ms BOURZAI (France) quoted Angela Davies’ book “Women, race and class” and said that the success or failure of the revolutions would be measured by women’s status changing in the right direction. There was a risk that women could be marginalised despite the downfall of repressive regimes and that eventuality was likely given the recent history of women losing some of the gains of revolution. There were several historical examples including the Napoleonic code following the French Revolution and the Islamic Republic of Iran restricting women’s rights following the fall of the Shah. She noted that the National Transitional Council in Libya was looking to restore polygamy and to ban divorce, and that women in Egypt were choosing to boycott rather than take part in “a sham election”. There was a question whether this resulted from time being required to introduce rights. There was a danger that women’s rights were always

the last to be implemented. If revolutionary States were allowed to fail to implement women’s rights it would be tantamount to an acceptance that human rights applied only to men. Such a change in approach would be unacceptable. This fight was not just for the sake of women but for nations as a whole; admitting women into full society would be a sign that civilisation had succeeded.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Bourzai. I now call Ms Erkal Kara.

Ms ERKAL KARA (Turkey) thanked the rapporteur and the committee for the report. She noted from paragraph 77 that Turkey had abolished polygamy in 1926.

The protest movement had taken place across the Mediterranean and there had been calls for democracy, new democratic institutions, free elections and freedom of association. A high price had been paid, and people must now be allowed to build the future. For decades women had been closely involved in reform through trade union action. Women had helped to throw dictators out of power. They must not now be excluded from an active role and they had to be represented in new governments. However, low numbers of women had been given civil service posts and women were being excluded from new cabinets. Women often seemed to be given less important committees and responsibilities. All of that gave the impression that only men were considered capable of handling serious business.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Erkal Kara. The next speaker is Mr Rouquet.

Mr ROUQUET (France) noted that the Tunisian Minister for Equality had stated in Paris on 7 March that women were not just included in the Arab uprising but were its lifeblood and suffered beatings and arrest alongside men. The future was uncertain, and it was vital to be vigilant to ensure that rights were conserved and increased. Without political will, democracy could not flourish. Morocco, with its Partnership for Democracy status, was committed to implementing human rights and the rule of law. Much progress had been made with its new constitution and the Council of Europe had a responsibility to ensure implementation of these principles. Tunisia was the most advanced in the area in relation to the status of women. The government had committed to preserving rights, but recent statements regarding marriage and divorce were concerning. Maintaining rights was not enough, and further rights were still to be won, such as in relation to inheritance.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Rouquet. I call Mr Michel.

Mr MICHEL (France) said that in the wake of the hope brought by the Arab Spring, there was now scepticism. The rise of Islamist parties in new democracies was a concern, and revolutions that were conceived in order to anchor modernity were in fact giving rise to conservative messages and paternalism. It was necessary to use co-operative tools to reaffirm universal human rights and not allow rights to be relativised. It was necessary to counter threats to the status of women particularly in relation to domestic rape and violence.

It was surprising that the committee had not looked at Algeria, which had seen a significant decline in women’s rights, a problem seen in other countries around the world.

The principle of democracy had to be upheld by all countries in order that they could live in harmony. The Arab Spring was not yet over and would not be so until the rights of women were enshrined in political systems. The revolutions had started with a groundswell of action by both men and women. The principles of those who had led the revolutions should be respected.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Michel. In the absence of Ms Quintanilla, I call Ms Anttila.

Ms ANTTILA (Finland) – I thank the rapporteur for her very good report.

Human rights are our basic rights, and they belong to everybody. Equality between women and men is an important part of human rights. Too many women today are without those basic rights. Women in developing countries have the main responsibility for feeding their whole family. Without women’s work, children and men would suffer from serious hunger. Women have important duties; they must have equal rights, too.

The Arab Spring gives us a window of opportunity for women’s rights. It makes reform possible. Constitutional reforms are needed; they offer a unique opportunity to make the principles of gender equality part of the legal system.

Women have already achieved very important steps. You are on the right road, so congratulations on that. You need our strong support for your challenging work and we are very ready to contribute it. There are available best practices – so-called good models – in different countries.

Democracy is based on free elections, and I remind the Assembly of the importance of equality of political rights. Women and men must have equal political rights. We all share the same values and the same commitment to pluralist democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Women’s rights are an integral part of human rights.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Marin.

Ms MARIN (France) noted that the representation of women from the Arab Spring countries at the London 2012 Olympics would be an important indicator of progress made to date. The principles of equality enshrined in the Olympic ethos were often overlooked. For example, at the Beijing 2008 games a number of teams had had no female representation and 14 had included women whose heads were covered.

The report had focused on the outcome of the Arab Spring, but members of the Council of Europe should not forget the work still needed at home. For example, in France the principle of parity had been extended into the professions only in 2008, and until 1965 women had not been able to hold their own profession or property. Furthermore, 50% of referrals to the French ombudsman concerned women’s rights.

Changing the mindsets of individuals was the most important way of tackling inequalities. The Nordic countries led the world in that respect through education systems that worked proactively to tackle gender stereotyping. However, what had been achieved in recent years in Europe on gender equality should not be taken for granted. It would be a shame to lose at home what European countries were now advocating in north Africa and the Middle East.

At the London 2012 Olympics the President of the International Olympic Committee would make his traditional appearance to award the gold medal to the winner of the men’s marathon. It would demonstrate the significant progress made over the years if the President also presented the women’s marathon medal.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Voruz.

Mr VORUZ (Switzerland) noted from paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 of the report that several Arab Spring countries had committed to legal reforms. Specific provisions were required to promote the role of women in political bodies. What the Assembly had heard from the Moroccan speakers had also provided some reassurance. Nevertheless, there was concern about the future of women in the Arab Spring countries and that they might be excluded from the political process. It would be a shame if the Arab Spring became an “Arab winter” for women.

It was important for governments not to mix religion and politics. The State should not impose religion, and it should uphold the beliefs of ethnic groups. The Monitoring Committee would have a key role to play in assessing progress in the coming years.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I see that Mr Rzayev is not here, so the next speaker is Ms Anikashvili.

Ms ANIKASHVILI (Georgia) congratulated the rapporteur on an excellent report. The debate was of vital importance at a time of profound change in north Africa and the Middle East. It was terrible that, one year on, the lives of women in the region had not improved. Rather, there had been a contraction in the rights of many. This was ironic given the crucial role of women in the Arab Spring and in particular female bloggers who had done much to underpin the protest movement.

The Arab Spring countries needed to act quickly to reduce gender discrimination as that was a basic condition for democracy that reinforced the political and social stability of a country. The Council of Europe had a key role to play and could, for example, help foster the development of civil society.

The promotion of economic and financial independence was also important, though less so than improving access to education and the opportunities it presented. The Arab Spring process had only just begun and it was Europe’s duty to support the countries concerned in the process of political reform.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Anikashvili. I now give the floor to Ms Szél from Hungary.

Ms SZÉL (Hungary) – We all know how important it is to examine how major social changes impact on the lives of women in society. Many women have taken part in the fight to topple oppressive regimes and bring about democracy and freedom. The western world has had the chance to witness this on television and through social media websites, which include the work of female bloggers.

In the wake of the Arab Spring, Islamic parties have risen to power in most of the countries concerned. These parties recognise and respect advances regarding women’s equality, and this is laudable. However, we must bear two additional aspects in mind. First, it will not suffice to stick with current achievements. Women’s equality is a cause that must be advanced since there can be no democracy without it. Secondly, I would like to underline the fact that following the Arab Spring, the proportion of female MPs in most of the countries concerned has decreased. In Egypt, the percentage is now 2.2%, while in Morocco it has fallen from 16.7% to 12.3%. This has happened in spite of most of these countries having in place some sort of quota for women in politics, and indicates that these quotas are not being utilised effectively. They do not attain the intended goal of preventing the distortion of elections. To promote democracy further it is necessary to revise the current quotas for women and to modify the regulations.

However, a female presence in parliaments is only one aspect of women’s equality. In order to change the value systems that relegate women to a secondary status, a single perspective is not enough. It is also of the utmost importance to approach all issues related to the Arab States, including the issue of gender, with appropriate cultural sensitivity. Each State must fight for democracy on its own, and it is our duty to assist in this in a non-violent way.

Regarding these efforts, we consider it to be especially important that the countries of the region sign as soon as possible and uphold the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Furthermore, it is crucial that all these countries include the principle of equality between men and women in their constitutions, and that they should apply it. The third necessary element that can most effectively assist in changing attitudes towards women in the long term is that of encouraging the activity of NGOs.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Szél. I now give the floor to Mr Sabella of the Palestinian National Authority, a Partner for Democracy.

Mr SABELLA (Palestinian National Authority) – As we struggle towards greater equality between women and men, which is aptly reflected in the title of this factually excellent report, the question is whether women, among other groups in society, can be integrated into the new, emerging systems. The challenge for these systems is whether they will be capable of creating a balance between the traditional models of society that use religion, patriarchy and other embedded old systems and justifications, and the new, more democratic and open models that stress individual rights and prerogatives. This challenge will remain with us in most if not all Arab and Muslim societies, but we should not retreat in the face of it because the future of the region – your southern neighbour – is dependent on how successfully we can integrate basic human rights into models that continue to respect collective and family identities while at the same time not using those collective identities to deny the right of individual men and women to pursue equal rights and unhindered access to all spheres of society. Only thus can we have hope in the future of the societies of the southern Mediterranean.

The process of transformation from old to new is difficult and may face setbacks, as some members have mentioned in their interventions. But the model of Morocco, in which the Minister has pointed out some successes, and that of Tunisia, as singled out in the report, are indeed models that need to be nourished because they carry a strong likelihood of success that can be emulated by other States and societies in the southern Mediterranean.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Sabella. I now call Mr Biedroń.

Mr BIEDROŃ (Poland) – I congratulate Madam Fatiha Saïdi on her excellent report. The process of transition to democracy in the southern Mediterranean has not gone hand in hand with the advancement of gender equality in the region. That requires strong actions by the international community, including by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. First, I welcome the draft resolution put forward by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination and I call upon members of the Assembly to vote in favour of adopting this important document.

The experience of democratic transition in central and eastern Europe shows that women do not necessarily fully benefit from democracy as their rights are often put aside in times of transition, despite the fact that they, too, have been agents of systemic change. Not only has the situation for women not improved, but in the case of some countries in my region, previous women’s acquis rights that were enjoyed by them have been lost. For example, after the transition to democracy, abortion has been criminalised and has been banned in Poland. Now its anti-abortion legislation is some of the most restrictive in Europe. This backlash was a result of pressures from the Roman Catholic Church, which became extremely powerful following the collapse of communism. It continues to have an impact on government policies. Hopefully, that will not be the case in the region that we are discussing.

Taking into account the lessons learned from the transition processes in Europe, we need to ensure that the women’s movement in the southern Mediterranean receives all the support from the international community that it needs to be empowered and to continue to facilitate positive changes in that part of the world.

I come from a country where solidarity – historic Solidarność – was a symbol of freedom, equality and unity. It was a successful symbol that became a reality. Solidarność between men and women is now very needed on the southern shore of the Mediterranean. I wish a lot of strength to all the women of the region. Good luck!

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Loklindt.

Ms LOKLINDT (Denmark) – First, I congratulate Ms Saïdi on her very comprehensive report. The title claims that the success of the Arab Spring will be conditional on equality between men and women, and none of us doubts that following what we have heard today. This afternoon, we – some of us, at least – heard very impressive personal testimony from courageous women who participated in the Arab Spring. That was a very good background for the debate on this report.

There is no doubt that women must enjoy full human rights in the new constitutions that are being drafted in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Human rights are universal and indivisible, and they must apply to every woman – not for her sake alone, but for countries in transition. Neither culture nor religion should serve as an excuse for discrimination against women.

As the report also points out, the success of the Arab Spring has different conditions. The participation of women in public and political life is essential. The representation of women as candidates for every political party is absolutely necessary. We know from Europe that that is not without obstacles. We will have to call on Arab men, responsible men, who have an important role to play.

The true empowerment of women also goes through education and economic freedom. To give women equal opportunities in economic life, we may have to favour access to jobs – for instance, by creating facilities for children and other social rights. All in all, we can say that as parliamentarians in Europe – men as well as women – we have an obligation to support our Arab sisters in claiming their rights. The report is a very good starting point and a key document to revert to in our continuing struggle for their rights.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Blanco.

Ms BLANCO (Spain) thanked the President and congratulated the rapporteur on a significant report. The role of women in the Arab Spring was an important subject. The Moroccan minister was to be thanked for her contribution.

The Assembly’s real responsibility was to be aware of what should be done and then to do it. Women in those countries involved in the Arab Spring had lived up to this responsibility, and both young and old had gone out on the streets during the protests.

A similarity to the French Revolution had already been noted by previous speakers. Women often took part in revolutions but were then excluded after change had been achieved. Another parallel with Europe could be drawn with Spain, where women achieved freedom only in 1978. Before that date, they were allowed only those freedoms that rich men were willing to give. A woman could not even open a bank account.

Women contributed to the development of parties and causes in the Arab Spring but were not allowed to participate in that development. Without their participation the democratic revolution would not be complete.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Memecan.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – Mr President, I congratulate Ms Saïdi on her excellent but sobering report about women in Arab Spring countries. After reading the report and listening to the debate today, I believe that we should keep the issues of Arab women on the Council of Europe agenda, to remain informed and take action when necessary.

Recent developments have proved again that the removal of a repressive patriarch is much easier than the removal of patriarchy in society. We should unite against that form of oppression. Women, who represent half the population in the region, need to be an integral part of the reform process. However, the decreasing number of women in transitional councils, parliaments and governments is alarming. Many such bodies are responsible for drafting new constitutions and creating political systems for their countries. They will not be complete without the input of women.

Arab women will need to create systems of alliances and negotiation tactics to work out viable solutions for social and political participation. Women and men in this Assembly support our counterparts in the struggle through sharing tactics and skills. As Ms Bergamini mentioned in her speech, the North-South Centre is one of the venues that can provide that opportunity. The first meeting, held in Rome last year, was appropriately entitled “Women as agents of change”, and it brought together a wide range of women from north and south to share experiences and learn from each other. A network of women was established after the meeting in Rome to stay connected and keep the dialogue going.

The next North-South Centre meeting will take place in Istanbul at the beginning of November this year. Its focus will be on increasing participation of women in political and social life. It is easier said than done, but progress can be achieved through co-ordinated support. The empowerment of Arab women is the vital issue in maintaining their participation in the decision-making process in political and social life.

Women’s issues are not the same in each and every Arab society; their ways are not the same and the realities are not the same. We therefore have to listen to them carefully before we offer our hand. The conventions that bring western and Arab women together are excellent opportunities for listening, learning and mutual experience-sharing. Arab women impressed all of us with their heroic efforts to end the repressive regimes in their countries and step into a new phase. We are all confident that they will continue their struggle and succeed in taking charge of their own lives. They should know that they will always have our encouragement and support in their endeavour.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Memecan. The next speaker is Ms Alastal, of the Palestinian National Authority, Partner for Democracy.

Ms ALASTAL (Palestinian National Authority) – On behalf of my group, I thank Ms Saïdi and the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for this important and comprehensive report on the conditions for the success of the Arab Spring. As we all know, Arab women created changes in the Arab Spring and were active in ensuring peaceful demonstration and protest, but the report gives important indicators about women’s status after the Arab Spring, especially their decreased political representation after the elections in Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco. We still have a long way to go before we reach equality between men and women and achieve our rights as women in Arab countries in participating in political and social life.

After hearing the guest speakers from Arab countries, including Egypt, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Morocco and Tunisia, we conclude that Arab women are suffering in all aspects of life – suffering from domestic and sexual violence, discrimination, human rights violations, neglect, and inability to share in political and social life. But in spite of all this suffering, the Arab Spring opened a very small window of opportunity for women to work hard to share in changes to achieve their freedom – freedom of choice, freedom of marriage, and freedom in the media – and to take their right to share in political and social life without discrimination and with access to justice and the rule of law. We must have real democracy in Arab countries. This will happen with the support of the international community and of the Council of Europe, which has good experience in the field of democracy and human rights and the rule of law.

As Palestinian women, we are suffering and working hard for our rights, our freedom, our State and our dignity. We are working hard to share as a partner in democratic and human rights, but we are achieving little in this respect. In spite of all this, and a long period of struggling, we are still waiting for the Palestinian spring.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Alastal. The last speaker in the debate is Mr Chagaf.

Mr CHAGAF (Morocco) congratulated the rapporteur on her work but noted that he would like the report to give more explanation of the drama that had happened in Morocco recently. On 17 March hundreds of people had demonstrated in front of the Moroccan parliament on behalf of a young woman who had committed suicide after being forced to marry her rapist. The silence of the government, civil society and parliament on this matter had to be condemned. The criminal code that prevented the prosecution of a rapist who married his victim required revision.

The minister’s strong stance in favour of women’s rights was welcome, and the socialist group in the Moroccan parliament had called for articles 20 and 21 of the family code, which allowed minors to marry, to be revised.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr. Chagaf. That concludes the list of speakers.

Thank you, Ms Hakkaoui, for your participation in the debate. You have an opportunity to reply if you want to take advantage of that.

Ms HAKKAOUI (Minister of Solidarity, Women, Family and Social Development of Morocco) thanked the delegates who had spoken in the debate. While Morocco had made progress, it needed stability to allow rights to flourish. Those who encouraged Morocco on its way down that path deserved thanks. Delegates should accept the amendments proposed to the report. It was unfortunate that, owing to internal conditions, Moroccan parliamentarians had been unable to participate in the rapporteur’s work while preparing the report. Some recommendations were not linked to specific issues, and Morocco had already gone some way to addressing them.

The issue of separation between religion and politics had been mentioned. There was no confusion on that subject in Morocco. Indeed Moroccans were more fearful about protecting the delicate balance of their fledgling democracy than was Europe. There had been setbacks of course. It was disappointing that there was only one woman in the government and few in the parliament. It was a sad fact that in 2007 there had been seven female members of the government, but at the end of that government there were only five. Under the previous government, three of the five women had no political affiliation. This raised the question why there were so few female candidates. The nature of the process adopted was the underlying reason, and numbers might be higher under a different electoral system.

Issues regarding women were being raised at high levels. Violence against women was present even in the most advanced nations, and it was necessary to create a joint effort around the world to fight violence. Open dialogue in the Assembly and in other institutions would be useful only if it led to progress on this issue.

THE PRESIDENT thanked Ms Hakkaoui and called on the rapporteur to respond.

Ms SAÏDI (Belgium) thanked colleagues for their interesting contributions and their congratulations. She shared their views to a great extent and would try to respond to individual comments. The situation for women had not improved after the Arab Spring and vigilance was necessary. In Tunisia, mosques were awake to issues of polygamy and customary marriage. Genital mutilation was not practised in either Morocco or Tunisia and represented a gross violation of human dignity. Numerous Algerian and Albanian woman had returned to their homes after the revolution. The return of Islamists to power had, however, occurred through the ballot box and discussions with women indicated that women had felt freer in the absence of dictators.

Education was vital and the principle of human rights should be taught from a young age. The issue of inequality was multidimensional and a global approach was needed. Gender issues should become mainstream aspect of policy.

Morocco and Tunisia had found ways of prohibiting polygamy. It was a matter of concern that only two countries had been visited in the process of producing the report. It had been drafted urgently as the committee had wanted to deal with the issue at a topical moment. Tunisia had been chosen as its revolution was the oldest, Morocco because the committee had been interested to see the success of its 2004 reforms.

Ms Marin deserved thanks for reminding members of the extent to which women in the west continued to be subject to discrimination. The ultimate aim was that there would be no need to celebrate International Women’s Day on 8 March. The rules allowed for a follow-up report to be done within the next year.

There was a need to reconcile tradition and modernity. An eye had to be kept on the universal principles of human rights and it should be ensured they were not subject to cultural relativity. Ms Alastal’s hope for the empowerment of Palestinian women was a hope that ought to be shared.

Article 475 had been put in place after the report was finalised. The minister was sensitive on that matter and had called for a change to the law. The report was intended to be open-ended and nuanced. The intention was to avoid being moralistic, but the report was sufficiently bold nonetheless and pointed out what needed to be done. There was a window of opportunity to improve equality between men and women. Full equality had to be the final outcome. A strong message had to be sent that change towards genuine equality needed to occur; a mere marketing effort would not be sufficient.

The expression “Arab Spring” was not accepted universally and many people were concerned that the term risked denying their ownership of their revolutions. For this reason a different term had been used in relation to Morocco.

Finally, western women were also affected by discrimination and there was a need to ensure that discrimination of any sort was addressed.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Madam rapporteur, and congratulations on the excellent work you have done. Does the Chairperson of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, Ms Acketoft, wish to speak?

Ms ACKETOFT (Sweden) – .We have been discussing a delicate subject that is of major interest to us all, particularly as the Arab Spring provides a great opportunity for the entire region to establish or consolidate democratic institutions based on the rule of law and respect for human rights – equal human rights. It is also of particular interest because this region is right on Europe’s doorstep. It is delicate because the constitutional framework of our neighbouring countries is their own responsibility. The Parliamentary Assembly does not intend to teach non-member States what democracy is and what they should do. Nevertheless, today’s debate shows vividly that although we do not impose our views on others we still want to express them. I am pleased that Minister Hakkaoui from Morocco participated today because it demonstrates the interest that the Moroccan authorities show in our work here.

As the title of the report suggests, gender equality really is a condition for the success of the Arab Spring. The uprisings have led to institutional reform in some countries and to even more radical changes in others, with the ultimate goal being the establishment of wider freedom for the people – there is no way in which we can consider that that goal has been achieved if women are second-class citizens, if they do not play an equal part in politics or if their contribution to work and business is marginal. We should not forget that respecting human rights also means fighting against serious violations of women’s rights such as violence against women or not allowing a woman rights over her own body. The Parliamentary Assembly today confirms its role as a forum that is open to all major political developments in Europe and beyond and its commitment to making a difference. Of course, the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination does its utmost to contribute to that ever-ongoing process.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Acketoft. Now that we have heard from the committee, the debate is closed.

The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination has presented a draft resolution, to which no amendments have been tabled.

The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination has also presented a draft recommendation, to which no amendments have been tabled.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 12893.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 12893 is adopted, with 69 votes for and 3 abstentions.

We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 12893. I remind members that the adoption of a draft recommendation requires a two-thirds majority of the votes cast.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 12893 is unanimously adopted, with 68 votes for and 0 abstentions.

4. Time limits on speeches

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – In light of the number of speakers scheduled for Wednesday afternoon I suggest that the speaking time be limited to four minutes, not three minutes as agreed previously.

Is that agreed?

It is agreed.

5. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Belgium

(announcement)

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I now have to announce the results of the ballot in the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Belgium.

Numbers voting: 163

Blank or spoiled ballot papers: 5

Votes cast: 158

Absolute majority: 80

The votes cast were as follows:

Mr André Alen: 61

Mr Paul Lemmens: 85

Mr Pierre Vandernoot: 12

Accordingly, Mr Paul Lemmens, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years starting on 13 September 2012. Congratulations are in order and we wish the successful candidate every success.

6. The promotion of active citizenship in Europe

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report entitled “The promotion of active citizenship in Europe”, Document 12898, which will be presented by the Earl of Dundee on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.

I call the rapporteur, the Earl of Dundee, to present the report. As you know, you have 13 minutes in total.

The Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – It has been a great privilege and pleasure to write this report for the Political Affairs Committee. Its subject matter – the promotion of active citizenship – reflects three exciting and dramatic changes for the better in our vision of Europe’s politics. Each derives from the Council of Europe itself.

The first is recognition of the right to individual petition at the European Court of Human Rights, for that puts States and individuals on an equal footing. However, it took the devastation of two world wars for that notion to be adopted. Previously, it was assumed that the State would always come first even if that precedence infringed the rights of the individual.

Secondly, after European Union expansion in 2004, there was the Warsaw Summit declaration in 2005. This encourages the reinvigoration of democracy both nationally and internationally through its strengthening of local and grassroots levels.

Thirdly, concerning revised political theory, is how we view our own Council of Europe affiliation of 47 States. We now tend to judge its worth much more in terms of the well-being of families, communities and people in their daily lives. To those, we believe that governments and institutions should play second fiddle, yet at the same time we know perfectly well that thereby the role and sovereignty of nation States need not be in the least undermined.

National democracy is never short-changed by local democracy. In fact, the opposite is the case, for its quality and validity only ever reflect a combination of local results in the first place. It follows from this that the promotion of local democracy or active citizenship is no longer speculative or part of some new political advocacy; instead it has become a consensual matter for us all to see how best to put it into practice at the present stage of development in Europe.

I highlight three practical expedients that are easily within our grasp; each stands to benefit local democracy. The first is a common agenda within the Council of Europe itself. That will avoid duplication and achieve greater efficiency. Such a common agenda should seek to implement the Chaves report: agreeing priorities annually, undertaking activity competently and transparently, and adopting administrative structures that support the new approach. I pay tribute to the three chairmanships of this and last year – the Ukrainian, United Kingdom and Albanian chairmanships: all support this prescription.

Secondly, there is a parallel need for much better co-ordination between the Council of Europe and the European Union. At present, there are too many separate programmes. Since the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers represents 47 States, including all 27 European Union member States, but in addition 20 non-European Union members, it seems to me that it is far better able to adopt a pan-European approach on the co-ordination of matters of local and regional democracy than any other relevant body in the European Union.

Thirdly, there is a strong case for encouraging city diplomacy. There is convincing evidence that when two different places work together to address similar issues of mutual concern results improve in each place. I am certainly aware of those benefits. Having the honour to be the chairman of our parliamentary country group on Croatia, I am currently helping with some small schemes of city diplomacy between Croatia and the United Kingdom.

Participatory democracy, or active citizenship, is a broad grapple. As indicated in the report, it draws in non-government organisations, charities, trade unions, religious groups, political parties, business and corporate responsibility. Central, of course, are people themselves. They should be allowed to make many more of the decisions that affect their lives. The European Union’s focus on the 2013 European Year of Citizens could do well to widen to include that central aim – for upon its progress and fruition in Europe depend future confidence in democracy itself.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Lord Dundee. You have five minutes remaining to reply to the debate.

I remind the Assembly that at yesterday morning’s sitting it was agreed that the speaking time in all debates today be limited to three minutes.

In the debate I call first Mr Loukaides, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr LOUKAIDES (Cyprus) – I should like to start by reiterating the words of the progressive American judge and intellectual, Louis Brandeis, quoted in The New York Times in December 2011: “We can have democracy or we can have concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. But we cannot have both.” Consequently, when we talk about active citizenship directly connected to democracy, we must primarily think and act in terms of promoting a just society. We therefore have a strong obligation to work for a society where social justice will prevail, while at the same time combating and rejecting neo-liberalism and capitalism.

Secondly, in order to promote democracy and active citizenship in Europe, it is of the utmost importance to fight four shortcomings regarding the democratic deficit at European and national level. One is lack of visibility; today it is not clear what the objectives of European integration are and what form they should take. Secondly, there is a lack of closeness and proximity between public affairs and citizens. Despite freedoms and acquired rights, Europe seems to be a playground primarily for politicians, diplomats and experts, where citizen involvement is only secondary and very limited. Thirdly, there is a lack of information and dialogue; Europeans know little about their rights and freedoms. Their questions about Europe are often wrongly perceived and interpreted by decision-makers. Last, but not least, there is a lack of economic and social effectiveness. Faced with globalisation and crisis, Europe is perceived by many of its citizens as neither functional nor effective. On the contrary, because of its policies on growth and jobs, capitalists are exerting increased pressure on workers by imposing lower wages, more years of work, fewer social benefits and more insecurity.

Given those socio-economic realities, how can we possibly expect the marginalised and vulnerable people that the very system has produced to become active and productive citizens? How can we persuade taxpayers who pay billions out of their own pockets to bail out the banks – allegedly in order to save the economy – to become equal partners when the system has robbed them of their savings and done nothing to protect them?

I have a third and final point. An end must be put to the hypocrisy, contradictions and inconsistencies at national and European level. How can we speak about active citizenship when only a few years ago European citizens were asked by referenda to choose whether they wanted a European constitution? They said no in France and the Netherlands, but their will was not taken into account and was provocatively ignored. Two years later, the European Union, totally ignoring its citizens and peoples, brought back the same treaty, but this time has ruled out the possibility of holding referenda. Unfortunately, the same applies for the European fiscal compact: once again the will of the people has been ignored. The sole exception is again Ireland, which for well-known constitutional reasons must proceed with a referendum.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Loukaides. I now give the floor to Ms Čigāne, who will speak for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms ČIGĀNE (Latvia) – I thank the rapporteur for this report, which raises several important points at the conceptual and the practical level. One of its most valuable points concerns participation at the local level. It talks about the involvement of citizens in hands-on, practical ways. In this way, citizens really can learn about the dilemmas that have to be faced in policy making, such as in drafting budgets and making policy in different areas. This is particularly important given the need to tackle the present economic crisis.

Local involvement is a good response to the anger that might build up in citizens if they are not aware of the dilemmas that nations may face. As we have seen in the cities of several European countries, this anger has built up and manifested itself as vandalism and in looting during riots, so I see active citizenship and active participation as constructive ways of diluting such anger. They help to explain policy dilemmas to the people involved.

Secondly, there are several very good examples of civic participation through different projects and styles of policy making. Some of these examples could be taken to other countries and used in different civil society projects. It is also important that the report should encourage political decision makers in ensuring that citizens become more closely involved in policy making. This is a very important step, and one that is particularly important during times of financial crisis when difficult decisions must be made.

The report also raises issues about youth participation, particularly in terms of such participation starting at the age of 16 by extending voting rights to 16 year-olds. Obviously, if young people cannot participate in policy making when they wish to do so, then when it is too late, it really is too late. Young people may become disillusioned and apathetic.

I want to talk about threats to active citizenship in the States represented in the Council of Europe. Disillusionment and apathy are the threats that may have to be faced. These arise out of the fact that “nothing ever changes”. Very often, elections bring no change for citizens, who are then prepared, for instance, to sell their votes during elections simply for immediate financial benefit. They do not know about the broader impact of doing that.

Another important threat to active citizenship is the oppression of active participation. We have seen in some Council of Europe member States a crackdown on active participation. For instance, in Russia, members of a female punk rock band have been detained in police custody and are now awaiting trial because they actually dared to launch a provocative song that criticised the incumbent Prime Minister. That is unacceptable because it oppresses the active participation and active citizenship that this report seeks to promote.

(Ms Woldseth, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Mota Amaral.)

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Čigāne. I now call Ms Guţu, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Ms GUŢU (Republic of Moldova) (summary) had the honour of speaking on behalf of the ALDE Group and thanked the Earl of Dundee for a report that highlighted the important role of active citizenship in promoting democracy. Such citizen engagement in European countries was often envied by developing democracies. It had various aspects and could include all age groups. In recent times the economic crisis had helped to promote greater citizen engagement, which had led to the removal of governments in some countries via the ballot box.

The growth in the level of emigration between European countries posed an interesting question as to how to promote active citizenship among those who had left their countries. One idea was to allow immigrants a proxy vote in their home countries.

Another aspect to active citizenship was discursive democracy – in other words, the role of freedom of speech. The report had also highlighted the need to encourage civic activism in order to counter indifference. This was becoming an increasing problem, for example, in Moldova. Elsewhere the report highlighted the contribution of non-governmental organisations in promoting active citizenship.

Overall it was hoped that the Assembly would have further opportunity to discuss and take forward this important issue.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Guţu. I now call Ms Huovinen, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Ms HUOVINEN (Finland) – Before arriving in Strasbourg, I updated my Facebook status to say that I was on my way here to discuss important human rights and democracy issues. A friend asked me a question: apart from taking part in elections, how can the ordinary citizen participate in democracy? That is a well-founded question. Democracy is without doubt the best way to tackle our joint challenges, but it is not perfect, and that is why we must always continue to consider ways of improving participation and increasing the chance for our citizens to take part in democratic decision-making by means other than that of voting. A democratic society must constantly improve its efforts to improve openness and transparency.

I thank the rapporteur for his report, which outlines several ways of finding solutions and improving democratic processes. However, I think that the report could have gone a lot further. Promoting active citizenship in Europe is one of our key challenges, and I would have hoped for a more comprehensive approach to the issue. None the less, the late inclusion in the report of measures aimed at strengthening youth participation is important because involving young people is crucial for democracy. They cannot be left thinking that they do not have a say and are thus not part of the democratic system. If that happens, there is a great danger that they will be excluded from any involvement, and will find other, less constructive ways of becoming involved.

I hope that the examples set out in the report will encourage us all towards developing greater inclusion within our societies. For example, we have had a good experience in Finland through organising regular gatherings in youth parliaments, which have strengthened the fostering of democracy in schools and increased the possibility for young people to take forward their own ideas in our legislation. Politics belongs to everybody and our democracies are only as strong as the number of people taking part in them.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Heald, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr HEALD (United Kingdom) – I should start by saying that I am actually wearing the Finnish Parliament tie, and I pay tribute to Finland’s 200 youth councils. That is a remarkable initiative, which should be taken with the initiatives of the Council of Europe – it has a youth assembly in October – and the work of the European youth parliament and the national youth parliaments of some of our countries. To start with young people and try to help them have an idea of an active citizen is a tremendously good way to go. I pay tribute to the rapporteur, who identifies that as a very important theme in his report.

What does an active citizen look like? They are probably someone who understands modern electronic media. In the Arab Spring, we have all seen how the BlackBerry and the iPhone played their part in enabling people to break through conventional barriers. We have seen how people can talk about their

ideas on websites and intervene on one another in active debate. As we speak, ConservativeHome, a United Kingdom website, has a page looking at some of my ideas about reforming the second chamber of the Westminster Parliament. I am getting criticised quite a bit.

The other thing to mention is that our parliaments can do a lot more to let people comment on laws as we are passing them. In Westminster, we are doing that now; as a law is going through, people can go on the parliament website and say what they think about the measures that are being debated.

To me, an active citizen is somebody who is protected by the rule of law and who is confident in their ability to act. Improved implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights in all our countries is very important in this regard. An active citizen is knowledgeable about their country and how their society works, and about the purpose of government.

Educating our young people is crucial. An active citizen is socially responsible in how they live their life and has been brought to those values by their family and education. They are a person who recognises the importance of charity, social enterprise and volunteering, and someone who understands that the ability of local authorities to spend money at the very lowest level is important. Finally, they are an advocate in their company for corporate social responsibility, giving something back. Although I do not agree with Mr Loukaides about everything, and I do not think we should reject capitalism, we want capitalism with a human face.

THE PRESIDENT – The rapporteur will reply at the end of the debate, but does Lord Dundee wish to respond at this stage?

Lord DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – I am perfectly happy to do so, Madam President, if you would like me to, but you might think that it would be a better use of time if I waited until the end.

THE PRESIDENT – Okay. We will continue with the debate. I call Mr O’Reilly.

Mr O’REILLY (Ireland) – In an ideal world, democracy should begin at home. Those of us with the privilege of being parents should create democratic homes where people have a real say, and where young people are listened to and respected properly. From that will emanate the right kind of self-image and consciousness that extends further. However, that is an ideal world, and we have to strive towards it.

I believe that the true cradle of democracy after the home must be the school. There should be active student unions in our schools; they do that very well in the school of one of my sons. An active student union should feed into the youth parliament and the youth assembly. We have that in our country, but it needs further development. It is critical that young people see that their views result in a product. That is a crucial dimension.

Local democracy represents the next layer of importance. To strengthen local democracy properly, we should collect local taxes. They would have to be allowed against the national taxation of the individual, but there should be local collection of taxes and local responsibility for the spending of that money. Therein is the crucial dimension for creating active and proper participation in local democracy. We have a duty to promote that at a Council of Europe level, and I commend the work of Sir Alan Meale, my colleague from the United Kingdom, as I commend this excellent report by Lord Dundee, who is also from the United Kingdom.

The recession has had a twin effect on democracy. It has focused people’s minds on the governmental process; that was very apparent during the last elections in our country. I could see it in people’s engagement. On the other hand, it does create a temptation to remove local democracy, and that has to be avoided. What we need is to participate in local democracy while avoiding forms of waste. There is a deficit at European Union level – a democratic deficit. I personally believe that we should have a directly elected president of the European Commission and that we need to look at the whole European project in that regard. It is good that an individual can petition the European Court of Human Rights. We need to build civil society all over Europe and ensure that voluntary organisations, pressure groups and unions are strong.

I conclude on that point. This debate and Lord Dundee’s input are very timely. We should continue, and we need to remain vigilant as a Council of Europe that each of our member States has real participatory democracy.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Myller.

Ms MYLLER (Finland) – The report on active citizenship is very timely. I am worried about the state of democracy in Europe. What is democracy without active citizens, and how can democracy work if its members cannot have their voices heard? The common goal of both the Council of Europe and the European Union is to strengthen democracy and empower people – I mean both representative and direct democracy between the State and civil society, and within and between political institutions and non-governmental organisations.

People constantly seek new and more direct ways to influence their societies. We must react to this and develop better ways for people to be heard, but with respect for our common democratic institutions. Direct democracy is not meant for the loudest; it is meant for everyone, and fostering democratic values must start at school.

Finland has strong regional democracy within its municipalities, but it is not perfect. Many fail to participate in public hearings on municipal matters, especially our youth. Fortunately, active and democratically established youth councils act as their voice in decision making, as was said earlier. Strengthening the weight of that voice would further help to activate our youngsters. In addition, a new law proposes mandatory senior councils to give seniors a place to discuss and make their voices heard. Both those developments aim to strengthen grass-roots level democracy and to get people involved in the public discussion.

The Council of Europe and the European Union must tackle these issues jointly and with common policies. Democratic values and ways to maintain and enhance them are at their core. I hope that this discussion will give us some good food for thought.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Myller. The next speaker is Mr Binley.

Mr BINLEY (United Kingdom) – I welcome the report wholeheartedly and congratulate the rapporteur, my good friend the Earl of Dundee. What better man could there be than one from the earl’s background to propose greater involvement in our society by the citizen? He is truly a democratic symbol in this egalitarian arena, and I congratulate him in that respect too.

I want to highlight two comments that create an important thread in the report. Paragraph 16 of section 2.2, which is entitled “Business and active citizenship”, urges the private sector to regenerate communities. Thereafter, the report highlights the fact that Article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty urges us to “realise the ambition of citizen involvement in decision-making”. Those are both vital ambitions, but they do not come together easily or accidentally, and we need to do much more to bring them together, especially at a local level. We need to give citizens greater ownership if we are to expect them to provide payback through greater involvement in their communities. Local authorities, in particular, often assume that role without believing that they have a responsibility to involve the citizen other than at election times.

Consultation seems to me to be badly done, and I note that the report says that only five nations do it properly. In my own country, consultations are often badly chosen and of limited time length, and they often pose the question that will provide the answer that officials want, not that which the citizens wish to give.

Let me give an example of good local involvement of the citizen. In my own town of Northampton, we have a major regeneration scheme involving 15 major projects. It is called Northampton Alive, and it is my privilege to be able to talk about it in this Chamber because it is in my constituency. There are 15 projects all happening at different times. We have created a small steering group involving the important people who can unblock decisions and highlight to the local press what is happening. We are also creating a forum of 60 to 80 leading people in our community so that they can give us feedback every three or four weeks. That means that over the course of a 10-year project we are keeping involved with the local community and the local community is keeping involved with the development. That is citizenship in action, and I commend the report because it argues for that objective.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Binley. The next speaker is Ms Grosskost.

Ms GROSSKOST (France) congratulated the rapporteur on the report. It gave a full and comprehensive picture of the state of active citizenship in Europe and the actions being taken by the Council of Europe.

Major elections were due to take place across Europe - for example, in France and Greece - but the low level of public interest could not be denied. The rise of nationalist groups and those with ideas against rights and democracy was worrying and it was essential that citizens across Europe become more actively involved.

Citizens were the living souls of democracy but whether active citizenship should be limited to a local or regional level was questionable. It should not be forgotten that citizens were the holders of sovereignty in a democratic State. They were the source of power that justified the actions taken by their government. Citizenship was what placed every individual in a country on an equal footing. The danger of separating out active citizenship at a local and regional level was that it might alter the idea of citizenship so that it separated, rather than unified, individuals.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Kennedy.

Mr KENNEDY (United Kingdom) – Thank you, Madam President. It is a particular personal and professional pleasure to pay tribute to my parliamentary colleague and friend, the Earl of Dundee, who has acted as rapporteur on this excellent and characteristically thought-provoking report. Indeed, unlike my contribution in the Chamber yesterday, when I found myself at odds with Conservative colleagues from Westminster, today I am happily very much in tune with this Conservative colleague from Westminster.

I am also in tune with the Earl of Dundee on the principle that, as an American politician once said, all politics is local. The Earl of Dundee and I, as Scots, are a good example of that. We both have regional variations and commitments and a sense of being within Scotland – I am a highlander first and foremost, before I am a Scot. We are both Scots, we are both British and we both have the benefit of being Europeans. That multi-layered identity gets to the heart of localism, which the Earl of Dundee explores in the report.

I look back to 1983, when I was first elected as a highlands and islands Member of Parliament, and there was a feeling in Scotland, particularly in our part of Scotland, with a Conservative government who appeared unsympathetic in many respects, that we could get more of a hearing and a say by going directly to Brussels than we could by going to Westminster and London. Europe was popular because it was relevant, it was at the end of the road and it was practical. If there is a criticism of European institutions generally – this one less so than one nearby – it is that, at European and nation State level, the bureaucrats and the politicians have perhaps been a bit patronising and lazy; they have forgotten the need to engage the citizenry locally to show the tangible benefits that big institutions can bring.

In reminding us of that, today’s report is very welcome. I boast these days of having the city of Inverness in the highlands – a recent addition to our cities in Scotland. The role of cities is very important and I am delighted that the Earl of Dundee draws particular attention to that. In London, we are currently witnessing a heated and highly charged debate on the election of the mayor. I am a strong supporter of directly elected mayors, totally contrary to United Kingdom Liberal Democrat policy. I was out of step when I was leader and I remain happily out of step. The policy is wrong about this because people need to identify with individuals as much as with institutions.

The report is excellent and timely and I congratulate my noble friend from the House of Lords on presenting it today.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kennedy. I call Mr Kucheida.

Mr KUCHEIDA (France) thanked the Earl of Dundee, whose report showed the diversity of forms of social engagement. Youth councils, local groups, and humanitarian organisations were all forms of citizen expression. However, these forms remained marginal, even if they reflected traditional forms of participation. There was a question of whether democracy was endangered and whether it was taken for granted in established countries. The volume of citizen participation was gaining ground, but remained highly unequal at a European level.

Within Mr Kucheida’s own municipality, he had noted the engagement of 13-to-16 year olds, who had actively become involved. Young people gave their time generously by, for example, giving blood on a regular basis. This illustrated that it was not necessarily known which parts of the population to draw upon. The areas in which it was most necessary to promote engagement were often the most difficult to engage, and it was those areas from which anti-democratic and anti-citizenship feeling might emerge. The ongoing French presidential election, in which such ideas were taking a high priority, was a reflection of this sentiment. Everything that could be done, should be done, but there was some hesitancy at a higher level.

The Earl of Dundee was to be commended, and the Council of Europe could look to him for guidelines for the future promotion of active citizenship.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I remind speakers that we have a three-minute limit for speeches and I ask them to stick to it. I call Ms Clune.

Ms CLUNE (Ireland) – I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about this important document, which forces us all to take stock and ensure that our citizens know that they can be involved and participate in their own democracies, whether it be locally, nationally or in elections for the European Parliament.

In preparing for the debate, I looked at voter turnout in my country. Last year, we had an election to our parliament and there was a 70% turnout. In the previous election, it was 67%, so things are getting good. However, citizens who were polled when they left the polling booths said that they had voted to change the government because they felt angry and let down by politics. I think that that message has also been delivered in other countries across Europe.

I am concerned about elections to the European Parliament in my country. In 1994, turnout was 44%, but it had increased to 57% in 2009. Why? We had combined the European elections with those for local government. As other speakers have said, local government is important; it is the way to get at voters and encourage them to participate. It is the basis of democracy – people will engage because they feel they have a say in what happens in their local area and they have a strong interest in that. That has been borne out by the election campaign for the Mayor of London, of which we are all very conscious and which was mentioned by a previous speaker. People know who the candidates are and they want to vote in that election. A recent report said that more people actually know who the mayor is than can identify any government minister. Perhaps there is a lesson there.

Local democracy is the cornerstone of all democracy. People want to participate and I know that that applies throughout the United Kingdom, and in Denmark the first steps in efforts to promote citizen engagement were reforming, strengthening and empowering local government. It is something that we all need to do.

In my own country in six weeks – at the end of next month – we have a referendum on the European Union fiscal treaty. A constitutional provision means that we are obliged to put every decision taken at European level to our people in a referendum. That will probably engage people more than elections to the European Parliament. It will be an opportunity for politicians and civic society to engage with citizens. We will have discussions on European Union matters in town hall meetings, on the Internet and in social media, in “speakers’ corners” and through personal canvassing and campaigning. People will be able to engage with European questions.

On further participation, apart from elections, our government has proposed a constitutional convention. Details were produced in the past six weeks and passing the convention is part of the programme for government. It wants to engage citizens to ensure that they have their say on issues such as revising the electoral system, the terms for the election for president, extending the right to vote to younger people – by reducing the voting age to 17 – and encouraging women to participate in public life and in politics. One hundred members of the population are to be chosen for the constitutional convention, based on a statistical review of the electorate. Those people will not be from interest groups or NGOs, but from the general population. I am looking forward to the results of that and hoping that it will improve the democratic process, with which citizens can engage.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Szabó.

Mr SZABÓ (Hungary) paid tribute to the work of the rapporteur, who he believed had drawn attention to one of the great challenges of the modern age. As 2013 would be the European Year of the Citizen, this was particularly relevant. It was particularly important to note that active citizens existed within all age groups within the population.

There were three main principles of active citizenship: respect, responsibility and participation. The citizen who cared about democracy felt a responsibility for the way in which it was run. Citizens should be able to influence the ways in which the State operated and actively contribute to improvements in living standards and similar local concerns. There should be room for individuals to access information in order to make decisions about how to cast their votes. In relation to minority groups and ethnic minorities in particular, these three principles became dependent also on the need for such groups to retain their own cultural identities and languages, and to operate self-governance and autonomy.

The Earl of Dundee had been right to emphasise the role of national governments, but the role of international elites also ought to be considered. Many countries were experiencing falling rates of participation and there was a sense of disillusionment with political processes. The far right was also exerting its influence. National governments and political elites therefore needed work together to counter that tendency. Opportunities to exchange views and discuss issues should be widely available.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Szabó. The next speaker is Mr Kalmár.

Mr KALMÁR (Hungary) – This subject seems to be a very real one in Europe. I congratulate the rapporteur on his work and that of his team, but I am afraid that the document does not deal with the main and basic problem. Today in local and national politics we find that people are more and more apathetic and disillusioned. They feel that politics is further and further away from them.

An everyday person would expect the political system to establish legal frameworks that help him to solve his personal or community problems, but what does he get from politics? First, he feels very important to politicians during political campaigns, but after he has voted he is mostly forgotten. However, politicians also remember him when there are different programmes and an audience is needed. Secondly, people in both eastern and western Europe feel that life gets more and more difficult and jobs are difficult to find. If someone has a job, he has to work more and more to get the same salary as before and he does not have enough spare time for his family and to deal with any family problems, so he can hardly find time to be an active citizen.

There are countries in southern Europe where the elected prime minister or president has been placed by Brussels, the International Monetary Fund or another financial power. In Romania, for example, there is a law that permits the organisation of local referenda, but when local government in Szeklerland, central Romania, organised such a referendum on the eventual autonomy of the region the results were criticised by the prefects and overturned by the law courts. In addition, the funds allocated by States for social and welfare systems are not sufficient to maintain the satisfactory operation of those systems.

Citizens are free to express their opinions, and politicians even listen to them, but what is the result? Nothing happens. So, one might ask, “What happened to democracy and why should I be an active citizen?” What has changed in the political field? Citizens feel that there should be radical change and that is why they move towards the extreme parties on both the left and the right, as we have seen in France. These are the main problems. If citizens feel that politics and politicians are close to them and that they can rely on those who have been elected, believe me, they will become active.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kalmár. The next speaker is Ms Szél.

Ms SZÉL (Hungary) – I wish to emphasise that citizenship and community are integrally connected concepts. The development of democratic processes has to start at the local level because although central governments may provide frameworks that are sometimes backed by law they cannot direct devolved government to deliver. In this context, I want to highlight the importance of involving two particular, special groups in democracy procedures at the local level.

Several local government-initiated democracy programmes are making efforts to change the institutional context where there is civic involvement. Where attempts to increase engagement through new forms of participation are successful, there is also potential to promote the construction of new institutions. In this sense, it is crucial to involve both young and elderly people in local processes to enhance democracy. They can contribute not only to the activity of the voluntary sector but to the development of the community. Young people’s creative solutions can lead to the renewal of former structures such as the introduction of new Internet communication technologies to different public services.

Communities also need the experience and knowledge of elderly people. By promoting active age-friendly working conditions and supporting the role of older people in society, Europe not only gives an adequate response to the rapid growth in the number of people in their late 50s or older, but also responds to the changing relationship between the State and its citizens. Encouraging the active participation of these groups can also strengthen the solidarity between generations that is essential to European values. It is important to note, however, that structures with the aim of increasing the participation of these social groups must take their special interests into consideration. The participation of young people requires a more informal, project-oriented approach to political activity, whereas the involvement of elderly people starts with the removal of possible barriers.

When it comes to the different institutional arrangements offered by public authorities and civil organisations for active citizenship there is a clear territorial division between western and east-central Europe. In east-central Europe the main question is not how to expand the former institutional realm but how to invent and establish adequate structures for citizen involvement. Unlike in the west, where the participation of young citizens is usually seen as a form of counter-reaction to the power concentration of the welfare State, in the east it is experienced as a way of covering the gap left by the contracting welfare State and of promoting the development of the feeble civil sector.

The Council of Europe has always been a forerunner to the promotion of active citizenship. The European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life, the Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Life and the Warsaw Declaration are examples of the Council’s commitment to changing the relationship between State and citizen. As Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote, “The best government is that which teaches us to govern ourselves.” This issue is absolutely crucial.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Szél. The next speaker is Mr Connarty.

Mr CONNARTY (United Kingdom) – First, I wish to put on record my admiration for the work of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy and of the rapporteur, the Earl of Dundee, on this sensitive and vital issue.

Without active citizens, all our activities turn to dust. Only dictators and the deluded among the political class believe that their work is worthwhile for its own sake if those wielding power are alienated from the citizen. As citizens young and old took to the streets in north Africa, European politicians cried out about their government’s failings, but many governments now ignore the protests of their own citizens. The report has much to say about active citizenship at the local level. It contains many excellent examples, in section 5 in particular, none of which is unique and few of which are new.

I spent 13 years as an elected member in local government before being elected to the United Kingdom Parliament. In my last local election, there was a 60% turnout – I got 73% of the votes in my ward and I was very pleased; but now there is talk in Scotland that we will be lucky if we get turnout of more than 25% in the local elections. The reason is that apathy is winning, not helped by the fact that when the Scottish nationalists – the Scottish National Party – won in the Scottish Parliament in 2007 they took the power to set local revenue-raising taxes. They have sucked up that power by rate-capping Scottish local councils ever since! Now there is talk of the United Kingdom central Government performing that same theft of local council power in England. That undermines active local democracy and sends a message that local people do not count. Centralisation must be resisted if active citizenship is to be encouraged.

As the recently elected Chair of the Assembly’s Sub-Committee on Youth and Sport, I commend all the initiatives mentioned by Ms Huovinen and Mr Heald, and in the report itself, to involve the youth of Europe. I was lucky enough to represent the President on the organising committee for the youth assembly that will take place in October 2012. More importantly, 40 young citizens will then represent that assembly at the World Forum for Democracy that will follow in Strasbourg. It is a credit to President Mignon’s term of office that that initiative has been taken.

I also attended the 2012 European youth parliament in Istanbul on behalf of the Bureau. There, I was approached by young people from Azerbaijan concerned about threats to the independence of their European youth parliament country forum. They had been approached by an MP’s aide who said that he wanted to run the forum on their behalf and that he had the “contacts” in the Government that they needed. They wanted my help to save their independence from Government or party interference. By supporting the report, which I hope will be slightly amended, the Assembly of the Council of Europe will make it clear that youth do not want to be absorbed or co-opted and that we at the Council of Europe want to hear the free and independent voice of European youth.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Gaudi Nagy.

Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary) – I fully agree with Lord Dundee that active citizenship is a crucial element in restoring confidence in democracy at European level. The democratic deficit in Europe is caused mainly by the huge gap between the real decision makers, who are mostly hidden behind puppet politicians, and the people whose lives are badly determined by continued budgetary cuts, urged by the International

Monetary Fund or the European Union. That decreases investment in human resources and increases the profit levels of global companies. European people could be more active in using their rights to active citizenship if human rights watchdogs such as the Council of Europe concentrated their efforts on promoting and defending the rights of traditional national communities and not exclusively the rights of individuals.

Europe was founded by nations and is still characterised by traditional national communities. That is why it is important to support the European citizenship initiative urged by the Seclar National Council – the self-governing organisation of Seclars, a Hungarian-speaking community of 700 000 who have been living in Transylvania, Romania, since 1920 after the unjust Treaty of Trianon. The aim of the initiative is that the European Union adopts rules to ensure special legal status for traditional national communities so that they can use their rights to self-determination. That is in conformity with Resolution 1832 adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly last year.

There are other problems. Some countries apply harsh negative discrimination against people with dual or multiple nationality. Although Slovakia has ratified the European Convention on Nationality, it launched unacceptable rules against Hungarian people living in Slovakia – members of a traditional national community forced to live in that country. Slovakia deprived of their rights many Hungarian people who had chosen Hungarian as well as Slovakian nationality and imposed sanctions against them. Recently, a 99-year-old woman was deprived of her nationality. That cannot be tolerated and the Council of Europe should resist such actions.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gaudi Nagy. That concludes the list of speakers.

I call the Earl of Dundee, rapporteur, to reply. You have seven minutes.

The Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – I am grateful to all the speakers for their excellent contributions. It is obvious that the theme of participatory democracy – active citizenship – is not in the least contentious. However, we should make no mistake: a generation ago it would have been highly contentious because it conflicts with previous political theory and practice that the State came first and the citizen came second. Now we are lucky enough, through our experiences of the past 50 or 60 years, to have arrived at a political position where human rights protection no longer conflicts with that of national sovereignty. And by emphasising local democracy, we can reinvigorate national and international democracy as well. It is essential that we work from the bottom up.

It is appropriate that many speakers referred to young people. If we now offer something new and worthwhile, the young generation must be part of it. We want to encourage children who are growing up to join a better political set-up in Europe. I very much agree with those who said that the more young people are involved directly, the more it will reduce disillusion and anger. It is obviously desirable to teach democracy in schools, as has been said. My colleague Mr Heald is a wizard with parliamentary electronics and is right to suggest that young people should comment on legislation as it is being made in our parliaments.

The economic crisis may seem inconsistent with our aims. If we have an economic crisis in Europe, why do we not spend all our energy in dealing with it? Is it a sideline to be talking about active citizenship? Yet, I think we all agree, and speakers implied this is their remarks, that it is not a red herring: it is a cure. Provided we do not prevaricate and let people down in our intention steadily to build up local democracy, then we assist all parts of life, including the economy. I have confidence in the continuing resolve of our chairmanships, starting with the Chaves report under the Ukrainian chairmanship, now with the United Kingdom and continuing with the Albanians, not to be sidelined and to build up much better results.

My colleague Mr Kennedy spoke very ably about how the European institutions can sometimes get rather keen on means without noticing whether they always serve their ends. As he pointed out, he and I would like to feel that we are assisted by our Scottish habit of noticing inconsistency rather more than may be done elsewhere in the United Kingdom; we both support localism. At the same time I should point out that Mr Kennedy wants to keep Scotland within the United Kingdom. We cannot see any advantage at all in separatism.

I end by referring to my earlier remarks. I talked about the practicalities of moving in the right direction. We can start with better co-ordination within the Council of Europe, but we must not stop there. We must seek better co-ordination between the Council of Europe and the European Union. We should also encourage all relevant and practical expedients, such as city diplomacy. Those combined measures will build up local democracy. Thereby, we best serve Europe and the next generation. We will also inspire confidence in and respect for democracy.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Lord Dundee. Does the vice chairperson of the committee, Ms Lundgren, wish to speak?

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – As this debate has shown, there is great interest in active citizenship and local democracy as tools to promote active citizens. As we all know, and as has been said, the struggle for democracy must be undertaken by every generation, and it is a struggle for us each day. Democracy is the core issue for this Assembly, as it is for all our nations, and it is about much more than just elections. This is something that we have debated in many different ways. It is all about getting the whole of society involved and getting people involved in as many different ways as they want. But we have to give enough space, time and room for debate so that the whole of society feels that it is being respected. People must feel that they are being listened to: They should feel that “It is not only me who decides; others decide as well.” It is only through joint decision making that we can move forward.

I congratulate the rapporteur and his team on their excellent work. As I said earlier, this debate shows what great interest there is in the subjects that have been raised.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Lundgren. The debate is closed.

The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution to which four amendments have been tabled. One oral amendment has also been received.

I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that all four amendments tabled, Nos. 4, 1, 2 and 3, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11. Is that so, Ms Lundgren?

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone object?

Mr FRÉCON (France) noted that the procedure could be used only if all the amendments had been agreed unanimously in committee. He, however, wished to vote particularly on Amendment 3.

THE PRESIDENT – As there is an objection, we will proceed to consider the amendments in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates.

I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

We come first to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Wadephul, Ms Strenz, Mr Schädler, Ms Frommelt, Mr Negele, Mr Haupert, Mr Hörster, Mr Puche, Mr Wach, Mr Sasi, Mr Herkel, Mr Mendes Bota, Mr Frunda, Sir Alan Meale, Mr Dobbin and Mr Sheridan, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 2, to add the following sentence:

“The Assembly stresses the importance of the Europe Prize, which it created in 1955, which has given a great incentive to numerous activities, friendships and partnerships between municipalities and their citizens all across the Council of Europe member States and it reiterates its determination to continue to develop this successful instrument of interconnection at the level of municipalities.”

I call Mr Wadephul to support the amendment. He is not here. Is there anyone else who wants to support the amendment? I call Ms Lundgren.

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – The amendment was voted on by the committee, which was unanimously in favour of it.

THE PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Heald, Lord Boswell, Baroness Eccles, Lord Anderson and Mr Donaldson, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, to delete the words: “(the Single Programme)”.

I call Mr Heald to support the amendment.

Mr HEALD (United Kingdom) – I am happy to move the amendment, which I think has the support of the committee. I am certainly in favour of it.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case. The committee is obviously in favour.

The vote is open.

Amendment 1 is adopted.

I have received an oral amendment from Mr Connarty which reads as follows: In the draft Resolution, paragraph 4.2.2, before the word “statutory”, insert the word “independent”.

I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.6, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated. In my opinion, the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.6. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case. I therefore call Mr Connarty to support oral amendment 1. You have 30 seconds.

Mr CONNARTY (United Kingdom) – On the basis of my experience with the European Youth Parliament, it is quite clear that under paragraph 4.2.2 the Youth Council should in fact be independent. It does not say that, so the amendment seeks to add the word “independent” to make it quite clear that people are not co-opted or representing governments or parties.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee on the oral amendment?

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – Obviously, the oral amendment was proposed here and not in the committee, so the committee has no opinion on it. Perhaps the rapporteur does.

THE PRESIDENT – Lord Dundee, would you like to say anything?

Lord DUNDEE (United Kingdom) – Madam President, I fully support the amendment. It is a very good idea to achieve that level of independence.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I shall now put the oral amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The oral amendment is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Heald, Lord Boswell, Baroness Eccles, Lord Anderson and Mr Donaldson, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, to replace the words “the Single Programme” with the following words: “a common agenda”.

I call Mr Heald to support Amendment 2.

Mr HEALD (United Kingdom) – The purpose of the amendment is to be a bit more specific about the actual steps that need taking. Paragraph 7 sets out the general point, but this refers to the Chaves process and various practical steps. It is supported by the committee because it is more specific.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

The committee is obviously in favour.

The vote is open.

Amendment 2 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Heald, Lord Boswell, Baroness Eccles, Lord Anderson and Mr Donaldson, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 7, to insert the following paragraph:

“Regarding the progress of a common agenda within the Council of Europe itself, the Assembly would encourage the following five steps: implementing the Chavez report (as agreed in Kiev in 2011 by the conference of Ministers for local and regional government); agreeing priorities annually; undertaking activity efficiently and transparently; reporting annually to citizens; and adopting administrative structures which support the new approach.”

I call Mr Heald to support Amendment 3.

Mr HEALD (United Kingdom) – This is a similar point. The amendment is more specific about the matters in paragraph 7. It aims to reflect the agreement reached on the Chaves report in Kiev and to have some proper benchmarks and reporting back, to make the process work.

THE PRESIDENT – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Frécon.

Mr FRÉCON (France) was not against the content of the report, but a large part of this amendment did not seem to correspond with the subject matter of active citizenship. The amendment proposed five steps. One step, the presentation, was appropriate but the other four seemed to go further and had not been debated or discussed.

THE PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour.

The vote is open.

Amendment 3 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT – We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 12898, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 12898, as amended, is adopted, with 39 votes for and 5 abstentions.

7. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10.00 a.m. with the agenda that was agreed yesterday.

The sitting is closed.

The sitting was closed at 7.45 p.m.

CONTENTS

1.       Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Belgium

2.       Personal statements

3. Equality between women and men: a condition for the success of the Arab Spring

Presentation by Ms Saïdi of report of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination

Statement by Ms Bassima Hakkaoui, Minister of Solidarity, Women, Family and Social Development of Morocco

Speakers:

Ms Schuster (Germany)

Ms O’Sullivan (Ireland)

Mr Mendes Bota (Portugal)

Ms Durrieu (France)

Ms Gafarova (Azerbaijan)

Ms Bergamini (Italy)

Ms Blondin (France)

Ms Marland-Militello (France)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Ms Bourzai (France)

Ms Erkal Kara (Turkey)

Mr Rouquet (France)

Mr Michel (France)

Ms Anttila (Finland)

Ms Marin (France)

Mr Voruz (Switzerland)

Ms Anikashvili (Georgia)

Ms Szél (Hungary)

Mr Sabella (Palestinian National Authority)

Mr Biedroń (Poland)

Ms Loklindt (Denmark)

Ms Blanco (Spain)

Ms Memecan (Turkey)

Ms Alastal (Palestinian National Authority)

Mr Chagaf (Morocco)

      Replies:

Ms Bassima Hakkaoui, Minister of Solidarity, Women, Family and Social Development of Morocco

Ms Saïdi (Belgium)

Ms Acketoft (Sweden)

Draft resolution adopted

Draft recommendation adopted

4.       Time limits on speeches

5.       Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Belgium (announcement)

6.       The promotion of active citizenship in Europe

Presentation by the Earl of Dundee of report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy (Document 12898)

Speakers:

      Mr Loukaides (Cyprus)

      Ms Čigāne (Latvia)

      Ms Guţu (Republic of Moldova)

      Ms Huovinen (Finland)

      Mr Heald (United Kingdom)

      Mr O’Reilly (Ireland)

      Ms Myller (Finland)

      Mr Binley (United Kingdom)

      Ms Grosskost (France)

      Mr Kennedy (United Kingdom)

      Mr Kucheida (France)

      Ms Clune (Ireland)

      Mr Szabó (Hungary)

      Mr Kalmár (Hungary)

Ms Szél (Hungary)

      Mr Connarty (United Kingdom)

      Mr Gaudi Nagy (Hungary)

      Replies:

      Earl of Dundee (United Kingdom)

      Ms Lundgren (Sweden)

      Amendments 4, 1, Oral Amendment 1, 2 and 3 adopted.

      Draft resolution, as amended, adopted.

7.       Date, time and agenda of the next sitting.

APPENDIX

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of Substitutes who replaced absent Representatives are printed in small letters. The names of those who were absent or apologised for absence are followed by an asterisk.

Francis AGIUS*

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Arben AHMETAJ*

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ*

José Antonio ALONSO/Delia Blanco

Karin ANDERSEN

Donald ANDERSON*

Florin Serghei ANGHEL*

Khadija ARIB*

Mörður ÁRNASON

Francisco ASSIS*

Þuriður BACKMAN

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Viorel Riceard BADEA*

Gagik BAGHDASARYAN*

Pelin Gündeş BAKIR

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA

Doris BARNETT

José Manuel BARREIRO*

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Alexander van der BELLEN*

Anna BELOUSOVOVÁ*

José María BENEYTO*

Deborah BERGAMINI

Robert BIEDROŃ

Grzegorz BIERECKI*

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Oksana BILOZIR

Brian BINLEY

Roland BLUM

Jean-Marie BOCKEL*

Eric BOCQUET/Jean-Pierre Michel

Olena BONDARENKO

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN*

Federico BRICOLO/Paolo Grimoldi

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL*

Piet DE BRUYN*

Patrizia BUGNANO

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA/Valeriy Zerenkov

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU

Mikael CEDERBRATT*

Otto CHALOUPKA*

Vannino CHITI/Paolo Corsini

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE*

Boriss CILEVIČS

James CLAPPISON

Ms Deirdre CLUNE

M. Georges COLOMBIER

Agustín CONDE*

Titus CORLĂŢEAN*

Igor CORMAN

Telmo CORREIA*

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Cristian DAVID*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Giovanna DEBONO/ Joseph Falzon

Armand De DECKER*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK

Klaas DIJKHOFF*

Şaban DİŞLİ

Karl DONABAUER

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander (The Earl of) DUNDEE

Josette DURRIEU

Baroness Diana ECCLES*

József ÉKES/Bernadett Szél

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Gianni FARINA

Nikolay FEDOROV*

Relu FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA*

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER*

Jana FISCHEROVÁ*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*

Paul FLYNN*

Stanislav FOŘT*

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON

Erich Georg FRITZ*

Martin FRONC

György FRUNDA*

Giorgi GABASHVILI*

Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ

Sir Roger GALE*

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Sophia GIANNAKA*

Paolo GIARETTA/Vladimiro Crisafulli

Michael GLOS*

Obrad GOJKOVIĆ/Snežana Jonica

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Martin GRAF

Sylvi GRAHAM

Andreas GROSS*

Arlette GROSSKOST

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ

Ana GUŢU

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON/Indrek Saar

Davit HARUTYUNYAN*

Håkon HAUGLI

Norbert HAUPERT

Oliver HEALD

Alfred HEER/Eric Voruz

Olha HERASYM'YUK*

Andres HERKEL/Paul-Eerik Rummo

Adam HOFMAN*

Serhiy HOLOVATY*

Jim HOOD/Michael Connarty

Joachim HÖRSTER*

Anette HÜBINGER*

Andrej HUNKO

Susanna HUOVINEN

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Stanisław HUSKOWSKI*

Shpëtim IDRIZI*

Željko IVANJI*

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT/André Schneider

Roman JAKIČ*

Ramón JÁUREGUI/Jordi Xuclà

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mats JOHANSSON

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON*

Armand JUNG*

Antti KAIKKONEN/Sirkka-Liisa Anttila

Ferenc KALMÁR

Božidar KALMETA*

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Michail KATRINIS*

Burhan KAYATÜRK

Bogdan KLICH*

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN*

Tiny KOX/Tuur Elzinga

Marie KRARUP*

Borjana KRIŠTO

Václav KUBATA*

Pavol KUBOVIČ*

Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA

Dalia KUODYTĖ/Egidijus Vareikis

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Henrik Sass LARSEN*

Igor LEBEDEV*

Jean-Paul LECOQ

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Yuliya LIOVOCHKINA*

Lone LOKLINDT

François LONCLE/Bernadette Bourzai

Jean-Louis LORRAIN

George LOUKAIDES

Younal LOUTFI*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ*

Philippe MAHOUX*

Gennaro MALGIERI*

Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET

Pietro MARCENARO*

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Muriel MARLAND-MILITELLO

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA/Riitta Myller

Frano MATUŠIĆ*

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA/ Maureen O'Sullivan

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA/Sonja Mirakovska

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Dragoljub MIĆUNOVIĆ*

Jean-Claude MIGNON/Christine Marin

Dangutė MIKUTIENĖ

Akaki MINASHVILI*

Krasimir MINCHEV*

Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI*

Andrey MOLCHANOV/Alexander Ter-Avanesov

Jerzy MONTAG*

Patrick MORIAU*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Alejandro MUÑOZ-ALONSO

Lydia MUTSCH

Philippe NACHBAR*

Adrian NĂSTASE*

Mr Gebhard NEGELE*

Pasquale NESSA

Fritz NEUGEBAUER*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Elena NIKOLAEVA*

Tomislav NIKOLIĆ*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Carina OHLSSON

Joseph O'REILLY

Sandra OSBORNE/Charles Kennedy

Nadia OTTAVIANI*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU*

Eva PARERA

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Peter PELLEGRINI*

Lajla PERNASKA*

Johannes PFLUG*

Alexander POCHINOK*

Ivan POPESCU

Lisbeth Bech POULSEN*

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA*

Lord John PRESCOTT*

Jakob PRESEČNIK*

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Valeriy PYSARENKO/Volodymyr Pylypenko

Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ

Elżbieta RADZISZEWSKA*

Mailis REPS/Ester Tuiksoo

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE Maryvonne Blondin

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA

René ROUQUET

Marlene RUPPRECHT*

lir RUSMALI*

Armen RUSTAMYAN*

Branko RUŽIĆ*

Volodymyr RYBAK*

Rovshan RZAYEV*

Džavid ŠABOVIĆ/Ervin Spahić

Giacomo SANTINI*

Giuseppe SARO*

Kimmo SASI

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER

Urs SCHWALLER*

Senad ŠEPIĆ*

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Mykola SHERSHUN/Oleksiy Plotnikov

Adalbi SHKHAGOVEV*

Robert SHLEGEL/Anvar Makhmutov

Ladislav SKOPAL

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Roberto SORAVILLA*

Maria STAVROSITU*

Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ/Arminas Lydeka

Yanaki STOILOV*

Fiorenzo STOLFI*

Christoph STRÄSSER

Karin STRENZ*

Giacomo STUCCHI*

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI/Imre Vejkey

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Giorgi TARGAMADZÉ/Magdalina Anikashvili

Dragan TODOROVIĆ*

Romana TOMC

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV*

Petré TSISKARISHVILI*

Mihai TUDOSE*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Konstantinos TZAVARAS*

Tomáš ÚLEHLA*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Giuseppe VALENTINO*

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS*

Stefaan VERCAMER*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Luigi VITALI

Luca VOLONTÈ

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Tanja VRBAT*

Konstantinos VRETTOS*

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER*

Katrin WERNER*

Renate WOHLWEND/*

Karin S. WOLDSETH

Gisela WURM

Karl ZELLER*

Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO

Emanuelis ZINGERIS*

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Paolo GRIMOLDI

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Jaana PELKONEN

Observers:

Rosario GREEN MACÍAS

Hervé Pierre GUILLOT

Partners for democracy:

Walid ASSAF

APPENDIX II

Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Belgium

Deborah BERGAMINI

Robert BIEDROŃ

António BRAGA

Federico BRICOLO/ Paolo Grimoldi

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Igor CORMAN

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Gianni FARINA

Jean-Claude FRÉCON

Andreas GROSS

Margus HANSON/Indrek Saar

Håkon HAUGLI

Tiny KOX/Tuur Elzinga

François LONCLE/Bernadette Bourzai

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Alejandro MUÑOZ-ALONSO

Joseph O'REILLY

Sandra OSBORNE/Charles Kennedy

Ivan POPESCU

Valeriy PYSARENKO/Volodymyr Pylypenko

René ROUQUET

Mykola SHERSHUN/Oleksiy Plotnikov

Giacomo STUCCHI